How have courts interpreted section 170.6 of the Criminal Code when a motion to disqualify or revoke probation has been denied?

People v. Rojas (1963) 216 A.C.A. 878, 31 Cal.Rptr. 417, involved a hearing to modify or revoke probation. The court held that such a hearing, for the purposes of section 170.6, merely continued the original guilt trial. ⁶ Likewise, Pappa v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal.2d 350, 5 Cal.Rptr. 703, 353 P.2d 311, declared that a retrial in a capital case did not become a separate and independent action for purposes of section 170.6. ⁷

In People v. Paramount Citrus Assn. (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 505, 2 Cal.Rptr. 216, defendant moved to disqualify the trial judge who had heard the case originally but whom the appellate court reversed on appeal and ordered to take new evidence in conformance with its opinion. On a subsequent appeal the court held that the trial judge properly denied the section 170.6 motion because 'the new judgment to be entered after the further proceedings in the trial court would be based upon the evidence taken at the original trial as supplemented by the additional evidence required to be taken.' ⁸ (Id. at p. 512, 2 Cal.Rptr. at p. 220.)